The word -
'Responsibility' keeps nagging away at the back of my mind. I mean, just 'who' is ultimately 'responsible' for aviation safety – across the board?
The answer is writ large, clear, bright, in law, in blood and in reality.
It is not CASA; the 'law' clearly and unequivocally, lays every nuance of responsibility on the the operator or the humble fool sat at the controls. It is not CASA who have to face the music – they have all the fun of prosecuting a 'strict liability' charge (easy win) all the joy of claiming that they alone stood between an operator and the sudden death of innocent passengers; the added fillip being that 'they' and they alone, fearlessly stand between the rouges and charred remains combined with burned aircraft parts.
It is all a Bollocks of course; and, an expensive bollocks to boot. Not just in monetary terms, but constitutionally, operationally and even legally it is a con game imposed on the tax paying public. That standing alone is bad enough; but when it becomes a matter of almost every operator and pilot being 'uncertain' if they are operating within 'the law' and may face oblivion without 'proven intent' to break a complex, each way bet law, then you have to wonder why the industry tolerates such an incubus.
If as the law states – even your toothpaste can be transmogrified into a criminal action; why is industry not demanding 'control' of industry – they actually do carry every single whip and stitch of the 'responsibility' for air safety – in law, by law and for the law. So why the duck do we need a CASA? Surely, the professional 'investigators' of criminal behaviour; who are fully aware of what it takes to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, any case they choose to prosecute (evidence based) would be much better placed to understand 'criminal' behaviour.
We may well need an administrator of aviation – no quarrel with that; we may even need 'law' for guidance; fair enough. But if the case is one of 'criminal' intent; then the professionals need to be called in. Not some clutch of unemployable instructor pilots with large ego's, small brains and a penis to match the assembly.
Who is responsible? We are. So why do we need any more than an efficient 'administration' and professional police to keep us honest? I doubt half of the so called CASA 'professionals' could even begin to construct a brief of evidence to satisfy the prosecution – but strict liability precludes that. The poor old coppers have to labour long and hard to stand a chance – not CASA – just a hand knitted notion of 'wrong doing' will suffice for the machine to model another victory for 'air-safety'.
It is, without doubt, the biggest con game ever imposed on the long suffering tax paying public. Bring back the rule of law; I rest my case M'lud.
Drinks – now please – lots of......
![[Image: Untitled%2B2.jpg]](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Cm_HajunJBQ/Vuc7mMGoOSI/AAAAAAAAISU/PLJPRoRPvKUtliZvp7KwgHIZKQm9J3TpQ/s1600/Untitled%2B2.jpg)
'Responsibility' keeps nagging away at the back of my mind. I mean, just 'who' is ultimately 'responsible' for aviation safety – across the board?
The answer is writ large, clear, bright, in law, in blood and in reality.
It is not CASA; the 'law' clearly and unequivocally, lays every nuance of responsibility on the the operator or the humble fool sat at the controls. It is not CASA who have to face the music – they have all the fun of prosecuting a 'strict liability' charge (easy win) all the joy of claiming that they alone stood between an operator and the sudden death of innocent passengers; the added fillip being that 'they' and they alone, fearlessly stand between the rouges and charred remains combined with burned aircraft parts.
It is all a Bollocks of course; and, an expensive bollocks to boot. Not just in monetary terms, but constitutionally, operationally and even legally it is a con game imposed on the tax paying public. That standing alone is bad enough; but when it becomes a matter of almost every operator and pilot being 'uncertain' if they are operating within 'the law' and may face oblivion without 'proven intent' to break a complex, each way bet law, then you have to wonder why the industry tolerates such an incubus.
If as the law states – even your toothpaste can be transmogrified into a criminal action; why is industry not demanding 'control' of industry – they actually do carry every single whip and stitch of the 'responsibility' for air safety – in law, by law and for the law. So why the duck do we need a CASA? Surely, the professional 'investigators' of criminal behaviour; who are fully aware of what it takes to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, any case they choose to prosecute (evidence based) would be much better placed to understand 'criminal' behaviour.
We may well need an administrator of aviation – no quarrel with that; we may even need 'law' for guidance; fair enough. But if the case is one of 'criminal' intent; then the professionals need to be called in. Not some clutch of unemployable instructor pilots with large ego's, small brains and a penis to match the assembly.
Who is responsible? We are. So why do we need any more than an efficient 'administration' and professional police to keep us honest? I doubt half of the so called CASA 'professionals' could even begin to construct a brief of evidence to satisfy the prosecution – but strict liability precludes that. The poor old coppers have to labour long and hard to stand a chance – not CASA – just a hand knitted notion of 'wrong doing' will suffice for the machine to model another victory for 'air-safety'.
It is, without doubt, the biggest con game ever imposed on the long suffering tax paying public. Bring back the rule of law; I rest my case M'lud.
Drinks – now please – lots of......